Sony BMG to Offer DRM-Free Music

[mr.666]

And your proof for us to "believe it!" is what now?


Where do you shop 'cause I typically pay 10-15 dollars a CD and have for as long as I can remember.


Adjusted for inflation oil is cheaper now than it was in the 70's.


Lethal

the point is the media is dirt cheap, the printing is (mostly) digital, and the process is even more automated. i dont shop there but most chains (virgin, fye, tower R.I.P) charge 17-18 bux.

and gas was $1.20 like 4 yrs a go not in the 70's it was like 79¢ back then

 

[w00master]

Apple's AAC tracks sound better than Amazon's MP3 tracks.

The MP3 tracks aren't bad - but AAC sounds so much better to my ears.

AAC codecs produce a copy that most closely resembles the original signal.

MP3 and WMA distort the signal appreciably.

Here is a link to an article showing oscilloscope analysis of various codecs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2002/07/12/mobile_music/page6.html

*shurgs* I could care less. My ears can't tell the difference, and most people cannot tell the difference.

There have been MANY studies testing this so-called "bitrate" issue. Guess what, nearly every study showed that NO ONE COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

Even if YOU can tell the difference, I can't and 256 mp3s are more than good enough for me.

w00master

 

[w00master]

oh and COMPETITION would be the rec co's provideng the SAME DRM free content on BOTH apple AND amazon and seeing who sells the most then!

It's not about Apple or iTunes... It's about $.99.

It's competition between two stores. What does Amazon offer that iTunes doesn't? What does iTunes offers that Amazon doesn't? What do they both offer?

It doesn't matter, it's still competition whether you like it or not. If Amazon has a DRM-free track that Apple offers but with DRM. Guess what, to me Amazon has the better offer to me. I'm gonna buy it at Amazon.

w00master

 

[mr.666]

$3 a song? Thats a tad on the dramatic side isnt it? I'd like to see you back that up with paperwork...

haha, i said "maybe"... yes' a bit extream i kno.


it's not about Apple or iTunes it's about the 99¢

 

[audioruckus]

Apple's AAC tracks sound better than Amazon's MP3 tracks.

The MP3 tracks aren't bad - but AAC sounds so much better to my ears.

AAC codecs produce a copy that most closely resembles the original signal.

MP3 and WMA distort the signal appreciably.

Here is a link to an article showing oscilloscope analysis of various codecs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2002/07/12/mobile_music/page6.html

My brain uses a different oscilloscope....again, listening is VERY subjective..and from what I've read, when you do a blind listening test, and not many people can distinguish between the formats.

 

[w00master]

haha, i said "maybe"... yes' a bit extream i kno.


it's not about Apple or iTunes it's about the 99¢

Guess what. Most songs on Amazon are $0.89. Until that changes, I'll continue buying from Amazon. Hey, I could always go back to iTunes, ya know. So, go ahead and continue spending that extra $0.10.

w00master

 

[Jetson]

*shurgs* I could care less. My ears can't tell the difference, and most people cannot tell the difference.

There have been MANY studies testing this so-called "bitrate" issue. Guess what, nearly every study showed that NO ONE COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

Even if YOU can tell the difference, I can't and 256 mp3s are more than good enough for me.

w00master

I suppose the average knuckle dragger just wants to blast his eardrums with the latest metal band at the highest volume possible.

But real music lovers enjoy listening to the subtleties of a classical orchestra performance, or whatever their musical tastes happen to be. After all, enjoying music implies actually listening to music.

The ear is a finely tuned instrument, and most people can tell the difference among sources. Most people prefer the sound quality of digital music, over say the ticks, pops and scratches of vinyl or the hiss of tape. If you "don't care", then why are you listening to digital music?

Also, this is not a bitrate issue. I'm referring to the frequency response of a codec compressed track when compared to the source signal.

 

[mr.666]

Guess what. Most songs on Amazon are $0.89. Until that changes, I'll continue buying from Amazon. Hey, I could always go back to iTunes, ya know. So, go ahead and continue spending that extra $0.10.

w00master

no dude, what you dont see if that your fueling the fire that will ultimately destroy apples fixed $.99. it wont be there to go back to.

 

[SFC Archer]

Guess what. Most songs on Amazon are $0.89. Until that changes, I'll continue buying from Amazon. Hey, I could always go back to iTunes, ya know. So, go ahead and continue spending that extra $0.10.

w00master

Kind of along the same line...Radiohead was free (donations) on their website...now for DRM Free Album: iTunes=$9.99 Amazon=$7.99 hmmm

Which one would anyone go to?

Sorry, got to agree with the w00master on this one.

 

[mr.666]

Kind of along the same line...Radiohead was free (donations) on their website...now for DRM Free Album: iTunes=$9.99 Amazon=$7.99 hmmm

Which one would anyone go to?

Sorry, got to agree with the w00master on this one.

I HOPE I AM WRONG and the prices remain low from whom ever. but WOW you guys seem IGNORANT to the fact that saving a 10 cents or buck or two now is just a shell game.

 

[w00master]

I HOPE I AM WRONG and the prices remain low from whom ever. but WOW you guys seem IGNORANT to the fact that saving a 10 cents or buck or two now is just a shell game.

I just think that you don't realize that there will still be a choice. Are you saying that iTunes will suddenly vanish the moment Amazon is forced to raise prices on the songs? Are you saying that CDs will suddenly disappear?

There are choices, and right now my choice for downloading is through Amazon which costs less than iTunes. If the RIAA cartel decides to start charging $1.25 a song, then I'll go to iTunes or CDs. Is that so hard to understand?

w00master

 

[w00master]

I suppose the average knuckle dragger just wants to blast his eardrums with the latest metal band at the highest volume possible.

But real music lovers enjoy listening to the subtleties of a classical orchestra performance, or whatever their musical tastes happen to be. After all, enjoying music implies actually listening to music.

The ear is a finely tuned instrument, and most people can tell the difference among sources. Most people prefer the sound quality of digital music, over say the ticks, pops and scratches of vinyl or the hiss of tape. If you "don't care", then why are you listening to digital music?

Also, this is not a bitrate issue. I'm referring to the frequency response of a codec compressed track when compared to the source signal.

*shurgs* again, to each their own. Personally, I cannot tell the difference between MP3 and AAC (at the appropriate bitrate level). So, I really don't care. Besides, the primary reason why I prefer MP3 over AAC is b/c MP3 is far more accepted that AAC is. As things change through time, I'm sure I'll start listening to more AAC, but for right now MP3 all the way for me.

w00master

 

[err404]

It's competition between two stores. What does Amazon offer that iTunes doesn't? What does iTunes offers that Amazon doesn't? What do they both offer?

It doesn't matter, it's still competition whether you like it or not. If Amazon has a DRM-free track that Apple offers but with DRM. Guess what, to me Amazon has the better offer to me. I'm gonna buy it at Amazon.

w00master

It's not competition between two stores, it's competition between iTMS and the labels. Amazon doesn't set the pricing.

For the record, I don't really care who comes out on top. The RIAA actions have resulted in a lost customer in either case. Frankly I think the labels are more justified than Apple. The content is created by the labels and they are justified in setting the price. However you are very naive if you don't think that this is a long term strategy to break the 99 cent wall imposed by Steve.

 

[err404]

I just think that you don't realize that there will still be a choice. Are you saying that iTunes will suddenly vanish the moment Amazon is forced to raise prices on the songs?..

What choice? The labels can just refuse to renew with iTMS right before the increase. Since the labels can set the prices for the remaining distributors, everyone raises their price.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I HOPE I AM WRONG and the prices remain low from whom ever. but WOW you guys seem IGNORANT to the fact that saving a 10 cents or buck or two now is just a shell game.

However you are very naive if you don't think that this is a long term strategy to break the 99 cent wall imposed by Steve.

And what happens when Steve changes his mind about the 99 cent wall? Apple, like any company, will do what's best for the company when it's best for the company so thinking that the structure of the iTMS will never, ever change is very presumptuous and naive.


Lethal

 

[ph0rk]

It'll be news when the files are lossless. It was only a matter of time for DRM-free to win out, but for myself and others like me (and it's not a snobby, elitist view, it's just a matter of hey, you stripped my audio file of data!)

No, it is probably still snobby and elitist. Bandwidth ain't free. You can have convenience or the full 16/44.1 files - pick one.

 

[CWallace]

The ear is a finely tuned instrument, and most people can tell the difference among sources. Most people prefer the sound quality of digital music, over say the ticks, pops and scratches of vinyl or the hiss of tape.

And yet there are many people who spent five figures on tube-based sound systems because they love that "warm" sound they can't get with "cold, clinical digital" - even though it is actually harmonic distortion.

But as w00master said, "to each their own". I don't begrudge folks who only listen to LPs, nor those who only listen to FLACs. Heck, for the longest time I would listen to CDs ripped as WAVs on my PC because I didn't think MP3s would really be "CD Quality". Nice to get those terabytes back, let me tell ya.

 

[err404]

And what happens when Steve changes his mind about the 99 cent wall? Apple, like any company, will do what's best for the company when it's best for the company so thinking that the structure of the iTMS will never, ever change is very presumptuous and naive.


Lethal

Of course you are right, iTMS "could" raise the price, but why would they?

Let me lay out two scenarios:
One: The labels raise there price. Any company that doesn't agree to the new price looses their contract and can not sell music. The labels have sole control over pricing in all distribution channels. Everybody pays more.

Two: Apple raises it price. Amazon is not tied to iTMS in any way and therefore continues to sell at the lower price. People continue to pay the same

The point is that Apple doesn't have the power to raise the price, only maintain it. The labels are currently trying to make the first scenario happen, but first they need to build up Amazon. If nothing takes the place of iTSM they will just lose customers to copyright infringement.

Like I said, I don't care who prevails. Franky 99 cents is an arbitrary number. But this number is the fighting ground between the sides.

 

[jephrey]

another lossy/lossles argument...

Let's say for the sake of argument that it's 100% proven that you can't tell the difference between lossy/lossless.

There is still only 1 reason to listen to/collect lossy encodings, and that's because they take up less space.

The justification is that you or your ears cannot hear the difference.

Are there any reasons to listen to/collect lossless? I think so. But the benefits may be small. Theres a smaller chance, if the gene pool is lossless from the get-go, for someone to encode as mp3, then re-encode. The other benefit is in trading with people (not condoning, just saying). You always know you can go to your preferred bit-rate/whatever without further removing data from the file.

So like your photo collection where there's a 640x480 or a 720x540. I bet you can't tell the difference when the 640x480 is stretched, but I'd also bet you'd grab the larger 720x540... Why? The size increase is insignificant when related to the size of hard drives these days. In 10 years, why wouldn't it be the same for audio? Now, maybe as you get into bigger and better monitors you would be able to tell the difference between the pictures, just as you "might" be able to tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio on a nice system. Now is the chance for your audio to beat the curve to a nice system.

When the single argument FOR lossy audio goes away or is at least minimized, you'll be re-importing your cds and going through another round of trading, while I sit back and enjoy my white russian with some quality tunes on my system.

 

[chicagostars]

my home is a computer farm, too

A lot of households have more than five computer accounts. Authorizing my account on our iMac does not authorize my wife's account on the same machine. Each one of use have laptops, ooops four out of five is already gone with no kids.

Although your scenario has become more common, there are still a great many households in our society using a single computer, some for financial reasons and others who have scads of money but only feel the need for one machine. I'm not trying to be a jerk though, as I'm more like you: two laptops in the house and we're closing in on a desktop.

Not sure if this would help, but have you tried moving your files on your iMac to a central, shared location that both users can access?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Of course you are right, iTMS "could" raise the price, but why would they?

For the same reason they did business w/IBM, MS, and intel even though all three of those companies were "hated enemies" of Apple at various points in time. Things change due to unforeseeable events.

Why do you think everything will go to hell in a hand-basket if Apple isn't the only company serving up songs on-line?


Lethal

 

[em500]

I suppose the average knuckle dragger just wants to blast his eardrums with the latest metal band at the highest volume possible.

But real music lovers enjoy listening to the subtleties of a classical orchestra performance, or whatever their musical tastes happen to be. After all, enjoying music implies actually listening to music.

The ear is a finely tuned instrument, and most people can tell the difference among sources. Most people prefer the sound quality of digital music, over say the ticks, pops and scratches of vinyl or the hiss of tape. If you "don't care", then why are you listening to digital music?

Also, this is not a bitrate issue. I'm referring to the frequency response of a codec compressed track when compared to the source signal.

Oh it's very much a bitrate issue. Numerous tests show that at 64kbps AAC (or any of the other modern codecs like Ogg, WMAPro, etc) beats MP3 senseless. At 128kbps, it's almost a wash for most people. At 256kbps even seasoned pros using $15000 worth of audiophile equipment have a very hard time distinguishing MP3 from CD, let alone from AAC.

Listening tests are now often done at lower than 128kbps (because it's so hard to get statistically significant results at higher bitrates with modern encoders, including Lame-MP3). At lower bitrates, MP3 has very real technical weaknesses. But it's entirely inappropriate to extrapolate the results from low bitrate encodes to higher bitrates, i.e., to assume that AAC is much better than MP3 at 256kbps because tests show that it's much better at 64kbps.

 

[pjarvi]

The same Sony BMG that installed spyware via their proprietary media player, wrecking numerous Windows machines a year or so ago?

Exactly, after that fiasco I vowed never to buy their garbage again, and have not done so to this day.

 

[ChrisA]

Also, this is not a bitrate issue. I'm referring to the frequency response of a codec compressed track when compared to the source signal.

What you are leaving out is what is a called "psychoacoustics". And it is a "bitrate issue". Assume you can only save some fixed bit rate. Let's say 256 or 320. Now that the rate is fixed you are forced to leave off some of the information that was on the CD. So what do you leave off? All codecs have to throw away the same amount of information but they each decide which information to throw out. This is where the field of psychoacoustics comes in. The idea is that the human ear and brain only use a fraction of the information that hits the ears so if you can know what the brain ignores that is what you should throw away when you compress the data.

Some examples: Humans do not use low frequency to locate the source or direction of sounds. So it is OK to average the bass on the two stereo tracks, basically make in mono below 100 Hz.(This is way a subwoffer "works") Lot of other tricks. Like our ears hear pitch better in some ranges then others.

JPG compression works the same way on photos. The eye/brain doe not use all the information for example we can see fine detail in luminance but we can't see details in red. So JPG tosses some of this out.

The question is not which is "closer" when you look on a scope. Both codec have to remove the same amount of information the question is which does a better job of sorting ot which to keep and which to toss out.

The 'scope picture don't tell you anything. I can think of a many way to seriouly mess up sound in ways that you could not see on a scope.

 

[Jetson]

Oh it's very much a bitrate issue. Numerous tests show that at 64kbps AAC (or any of the other modern codecs like Ogg, WMAPro, etc) beats MP3 senseless. At 128kbps, it's almost a wash for most people. At 256kbps even seasoned pros using $15000 worth of audiophile equipment have a very hard time distinguishing MP3 from CD, let alone from AAC.

Listening tests are now often done at lower than 128kbps (because it's so hard to get statistically significant results at higher bitrates with modern encoders, including Lame-MP3). At lower bitrates, MP3 has very real technical weaknesses. But it's entirely inappropriate to extrapolate the results from low bitrate encodes to higher bitrates, i.e., to assume that AAC is much better than MP3 at 256kbps because tests show that it's much better at 64kbps.

That is a fascinating study of subjective listening preferences among the various codecs and "lossless" sources. I appreciate the fact that you actually provided references for your argument.

Still, the argument presents subjective tests, whereas my study provides an objective test of the actual waveforms produced by the AAC, MP3, and WMA codecs when compared with the "lossless" source signal regardless of bitrate.

The oscilloscope analysis doesn't lie.

How individuals perceive the codec output is most important I admit, but again this is quite subjective in nature and results can be colored by a myriad of factors such as the playback device, the reproduction devices (amplifier, receiver, speakers, room acoustics, mood), etc.

In my case, I listened to tracks from several identical albums on Amazon (MP3) and iTunes (AAC). The sources were of various dynamic quality ranging from rock, classical, jazz and vocal. I used 2 different headphone models: a Sennheiser HD 600 and a Sony MDR-V900. In each case I determined that the iTunes AAC track sounded significantly better than the corresponding MP3 track.

This wasn't a formal study so I don't have a white paper to reference. Nonetheless my opinion remains firm: based on the objective test (oscilloscope) and my own subjective test using high-end headphones, iTunes AAC beats Amazon MP3 easily.